That's pretty cool. You will bink big,... keep going. Vamos

You're right, a 10K stack after level 10 is worth more *money* than in hand one (excluding other factors discussed ITT)

This could be neutralized by late entries paying slightly more to enter or getting slightly fewer chips.

It would deter some professional late reg short stackers but the downside is it putting off many "legitimate" late reggers who genuinely have just bust another comp or who are unable to arrive/start in time.

Some live comps do award early bird bonus chips or juice free for early reg.

Whether it is +EV for a certain class of players to late reg these tournaments really isn't the most important consideration here.

Rather, the tournament organizer should be thinking about what creates the best tournament experience for the players. And in general, they should be thinking about creating a good experience for recreational players, and not just a good experience for "pros" whose main "edge" on the field is having memorized a bunch of push/fold charts.

Which of these players do you think is more likely to register 7 hours after the tournament starts with 12 BBs?

Having a bunch of people register or reenter very late with a super-short stack may generate more buy-ins and rake in the short term, but it is alienating to recreational players in the long term. It is one of the major reasons why I have almost completely stopped playing live tournaments within the past two years.

Very good points for live comps where ~12BB stacks can interfere with the previous table dynamic and ruin an early regging player's day, who may have taken time off work to play and could be a big MTT for them.

(It wouldn't personally put me off because I like having opponents whose play is fairly predictable)

Perhaps there should be an industry wide standard on the latest reg allowed in live tournaments, for example the level that the organisers in advance estimate will be where the buy in gets 22BBs, a stack depth that's more awkward for the regging player.

Or we can just let the market decide. People don't like playing, they stop playing.

I disagree.

Free market forces have meant a trend towards more live comps with unlimited re-entries and more that are accumulators (multiple separate entries, aggregating into one day 2 stack.)

While there is a place for these types of structures, they are becoming more common and they usually favour pro players and players with bigger bank rolls so are a bad thing in general for rec players and for players who are serious players who take time off work occasionally to play skillful poker but don't have the bank roll of pro players.

It damages the live game IMO.

In some markets regulation is good. Like health care, insurance, lending etc. This isn't one of those. If you are "right" then all those recs would already have stopped playing. They haven't, so who are you to force change upon them. Even if everything you say is correct, and that is a big if, eventually the market will show it and those who don't adjust lose business.

What you're doing is forcing everybody to organize tournaments that you think are good. Well sad news for you.

Sklansky had a good point about limit tournaments at the WSOP. A 10BB stack for a pro playing fixed limit poker could last into the money easily, especially in Stud or split Hi/Lo games.

The problem is the casino, which is barely turning a profit hosting the tournament. Getting them to turn away any extra rake will be hard to do.

What does Chainsaw think? Are these structures Chainsaw approved?

I think the market is deciding.

At the WSOP the past couple years, fields for most of the gimmick events with tons of reentries and super late registration have be consistently down. While the Main Event, with only three levels of late reg and no reentry, has seen rising fields three or four years running.

The reentry/late reg fad pumps up entry numbers the first few times people try it. But it's bad for the long term health of the game once people realize how it ruins the structure of the tournament.

This 1.5% built in edge would plummet to almost nothing in a large field because the difference between entering with 1 of 10 players eliminated and 100 of 1,000 players eliminated isn't proportional. It's because in the former there's a low but still real possibility that a couple of coolers will bring you into the money whereas in the latter the percent of people who bust quickly will regress to the mean (and the larger the number of players the more certain that will be).

It probably is an issue, though, in small buy in tournaments with fast structures where the buy in period extends very close to the money and in some microstake tournaments you can basically reg at the last second and stall your way to a highly probable min cash. I tried it out of interest and was able to get an ITM% of > 50% over a few dozen tournaments. The easy fix is to make it so if x% of the entries are eliminated it ends the reg period.

Yep, this I say

This is another issue, and it is another problem. But this one, at least, it is part of the game; meanwhile the another one not

Paradoxically the acumulators reduce ICM for the player that add chips in 2 days.

One eliminated player, plays in normal way; meanwhile one player that after Day 1A and advances to Day 2, plays also 1B, the ICM of his stack and chips that can win worth less. For the eliminated player wins 5k, 10k chips worth more, by ICM, that for the player that has already a stack in Day 2 and he is playing also 1B

Yep, Im not telling that it happens exactly in Si&Go and in Tournament, but...

1.-If the tournament is not Winner Takes It All, it will happen always. And TD shouldn´t allow that players get an unfair advantage

2.-I´m not sure that in tournament is less than in Sit&Go, because the prize for the winner (that is the only prize proportional to the chips, in Sit&go is usually 50% of the prizepool, meanwhile in a tounrament, it is usually much less)

Yes you are absolutely correct that ICM is in favour of single flight entrants in accumulators.

But the problem is that it becomes a bankroll game. The rec, or less well rolled skilled player with say a net worth of $25K who only has the $150 buy in for 1 flight is getting better ICM value for money, but the pro, or whale player with a net worth of $500K can buy into all 4 flights so has multiple shots at busting single flight entrants, and has more license to check shove bluff/semi bluff flops/turns and to shove bluff rivers.

ICM is a model, not the gospel. It tends to value short stacks too much and it assumes everyone has the same skill level. In reality if you max late reg your stack isn't as valuable as ICM says it is and you miss the opportunity to play deep with the weakest players in the field, who will overwhelmingly bust in the first few hours of play. Also if you're a winner your stack is never worth what you pay for it, it's always worth more.

The only situation where your logic might apply is to losing players, who will lose at a slower rate if they late reg.

The way it actually goes in practice is (just an example):

Rec enters at the start pays $100 gets a stack worth $90
Rec enters late pays $100 gets a stack worth $95

Reg enters at the start pays $100 gets a stack worth $110
Reg enters late pays $100 gets a stack worth $105

The above is broadly correct, but there are additional complexities, such as in NLHE a late regging short stack benefits from total antes posted being a significant percentage of their stack which is of benefit to its immediate growth rate potential.

A late regging short stack can also greatly benefit from pre flop protection (and occasionally from post flop protection) as it's likely to often be on a table where there are 2 or more very large stacks.

The above two factors are significant in why some pros are late regging.

It is a $hr thing as well as the math advantages of buying in late. And live it is better for your health to not sit as much.

ICM is the math equivalent, not the EV

If you are in a cash game, and you leave the table with 1300$ in chips , the cashier will give you 1300$ in real game. This is the ICM

Cashier will not say you (hey, in your table was Phil Ivey and Tom Dwan, then I give you only 1200$ because your EV is not as good). Also, he will give you 1300$ regardless the position (for example, if next hand you were BB and must post 500$ ; or oyu were the button, in a 2/4 game

That will be the EV and close you say. Both are things that should not be compared

it's a model, not an exact mathematical way to determine the value of a stack at a given time. you don't seem to get that

What percent of players win tournaments when late regging it that late?


Also my thoughts are if you reg early and play the full tournament, then someone who is a very good player late regs and doubles up a few times, he basically could have the same exact stack size as you while not playing as long as you did. Now wouldn't this be a huge advantage to players who understand push/fold? Thus i know there are definitely players who are very good at push/fold but not that good postflop.


Also people say if you play early on, you get to play deep against fishy players because they would be busted if you late reg. But when you have a big stack early on, people say its not the same as a big stack later on. So is regging on time even the ideal thing to do? Because you could build a big stack early on and then lose a flip and then you are out after playing a few hours. Yet the same player who late reg with say 20bb or a bit more or less who bust, he only spends a short time playing it. Also what is the ideal about of bb to late reg? Some tournaments you could late reg with 10bb... but someone mention they seen some with 5bb. I assume that is with wpn. But im guessing late regging with 50bb is probably ideal? Because if you late reg with say 25bb or less, isn't it basically going to be push/fold and shove/reshove with almost no flop play? Because for people who late reg, its like they are just wanting to hit or miss etc and if they bust, well they only played a short time and not the entire duration of tournament. Also people say fish play tournaments early on. Is that statement true? So very few fish late reg i assume then?

It is considered a model, but basically it is the truth in this

You receive a probability to be first, second, third...and so on based on stacks and on probability of the other to get other places

I find it very accurate,and practicely 100% right, then we can consider it much more than simply a "model", even it calls itself model

The accuracy of the ICM model increases as fewer players are left, but decreases as more players are left.

You are not a fan of late reg. We got it.

[X] OP hates late reg

I don ´t hate late players, but I don´t like that early registrants are stolen by the face.

It is simply as that. If they receive more ICM, they should pay a little bit more for the buy-in

Or you can just not enter tournaments where you feel it's unfair. If enough people agree with you the hosts will stop doing it eventually. That or late reg yourself if it is such a big deal.

Interesting anaysis

I can't see paying 10% rake for a 10 big blind stack being that great though

In my Hold em manager my bb/100 deep is 15 bb/100

Under 10 big blinds its 1 bb/100

I could be very wrong though and maybe max late regging is the best strategy

Probably impossible to know though

i think you might be the only player on the planet who feels like this, and i’m not trolling. you can make cases for shorter late reg periods n stuff but there is no reason for sites to give monetary incentives to players to start mtts from the beginning. there are so many problems with online poker, don’t create a new one

Do ICM models even exist for early stages of large tournaments?
What is the actual ICM advantage of buying in to a big tournament after 50% has been eliminated? Obviously, this depends on the payouts, but you can't just use SNG payouts as a substitute.

19 minutes.